Category Archives: Allah

Why Does Allah Ta’ala Refer to Himself as We/He??

We already know Allah our lord is One. As in Surah al-Ikhlas 112:1-4. But why does Allah the Lord use the word “We” to refer to Himself in many verse or ayat in the Qur’an? For example He says in Surah al-Anbiya’ 21:107 “And We did not send you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to the world.” The word “we” is plural, more than one. Why does Allah use “We” instead of “I” to refer to Himself?

It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to themself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. They may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an, where Allah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue.

Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, We have given you a manifest victory.” [al-Fat’h 48:1], and other similar phrases.

But Allah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that.” (See Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 75.)

These words, inna (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking on behalf of a group, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say “We have decided…” etc. [This is known in English as “The Royal “We””]

In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, so when He says in the Qur’an – inna (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers.

If an ‘aayah (verse) of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous ‘aayat (verses) for clarification, and if a Christian, for example, insists on taking ‘aayat such as (interpretation of the meaning)
“Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’an)…” [al-Hijr 15:9] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous ‘aayat as (interpretation of the meanings): “And your God is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.”   [al-Baqarah 2:163] and “Say: He is Allah, the One.” [al-Ikhlas 112:1] and other ‘aayat which can only be interpreted in one way. Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth.

Every time Allah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honor that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, and on the great number of His troops and angels.” [See Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 109].

Alternate Answer:

This is a good question and one that Bible readers have also asked about. The term “We” in the Bible and in the Qur’an is the royal “We” – as an example when the king says, “We decree the following declaration, etc.” or, “We are not amused.” It does not indicate plural; rather it displays the highest position in the language. English, Persian, Hebrew, Arabic and many languages provide for the usage of “We” for the royal figure. It is helpful to note the same dignity is given to the person being spoken to in English. We say to someone, “You ARE my friend.” Yet the person is only one person standing there. Why did we say “ARE” instead of “IS”? The noun “you” is singular and should therefore be associated with a singular verb for the state of being, yet we say, “are.” The same is true for the speaker when referring to himself or herself. We say, “I am” and this is also in the royal plural, instead of saying, “I is.”

When Allah uses the term “HE” in Quran it is similar to the above answer. The word “He” is used when referring to Allah out of respect, dignity and high status. It would be totally inappropriate to use the word “it” and would not convey the proper understanding of Allah being who Allah is; Alive, Compassionate, Forgiving, Patient, Loving, etc. It is not correct to associate the word “He” with gender, as this would be comparing Allah to the creation, something totally against the teaching of Qur’an.


Allah – The Raaziq

[Majlisul Ulama]

“There  is  no  living  creature  on  earth,  but  its  Rizq  (sustenance)  is  the  responsibility  of  Allah.”   [Qur’aan]

“Numerous  are  the  animals  which  do  not  carry  their  rizq  on  their  backs.  Allah  feeds  them  and  you.”   [Qur’aan]

Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: Rizq  is  sealed,  and  the  harees  (greedy  one)  is  deprived.” (That  is,  no  matter what  he  does,  he  will  not  gain  more  than  his  pre-determined amount  of  wealth.)

It  is  a  belief  which  is  an  integral  constituent  of  the  validity  of  Imaan  that  Allah  Ta’ala  is  the  Sole  Raaziq  (Provider  of  all  man’s  needs).  While  this  is  a  fardh  (compulsory)  belief  of  every  Muslim,  or  it  should  be  so,  this  Aqeedah  (Belief)  is  confined  to  lip  service.  Verbally  Muslims  say  that  Allah  Ta’ala  is  The  Raaziq,  but  their  practical  life  betrays  the  kufr  inside  their  heart.  While  the  belief  of  Allah’s  Razzaaqiyat  (Providence)  is  on  the  tongue,  it  finds  no  place  in  the  hearts  of  most  Muslims.

Bereft  of  life  and  spirit,  our  belief  in  Allah’s  Razzaaqiyat  is the  same  as  the  belief  of  non-Muslims.  This  becomes  manifest  whenever  there  is  a  clash  between  the  demands  of  the  Shariah  and  the  dictates  of  the  lowly  nafs.  The  haraam  avenues  for  the acquisition  of  rizq  appear  easy,  tempting  and  lucrative.  On  the  contrary,  the  halaal  route  seems  arduous  and  unpromising.  At the  juncture  of  this  conflict  does  it  become  apparent  that  the  doctrine  of  Allah’s  Razzaaqiyat  is  not  in  the  heart.  There  is  no yaqeen  in  the  belief  which  is  verbally  professed  by  Muslims.

In  view  of  this  belief  not  existing  in  the  hearts,  Muslims  resort  to  a  plethora  of  baseless  interpretations  to  justify  the  haraam  avenue  and  means  which  they  adopt  for  the  acquisition  of their  Rizq.  If  there  is  life  and  spirit  in  our  Aqeedah,  we  shall  know  exactly  what  course  to  take  in  the  event  of  conflict.  When  a  Muslim  truly  believes  in  the  Aqeedah  pertaining  to Rizq  as  stated  in  the  Qur’aan  and  Hadith,  he  will  not  be  lost  in  a  quandary  when  a  conflict  between  the  opposite  forces  develop.  He  will  know  exactly  which  course  of  action  to adopt.

When  there  are  two  conflicting  avenues  for  the  acquisition  of Rizq,  the  one  easy,  but  haraam,  while  the  other  one  is  difficult but  halaal,  the  Muslim  will  select  the  correct  option  only  if there  is  yaqeen  in his  belief  in  Allah’s  Razzaaqiyat.

The  Hadith, “Rizq  is  sealed.”,   has  a  literal  meaning.  Rizq  is  quantitively  sealed.  There  is  no  scope  for  increase  nor decrease.  The  quantitive  amount  decreed  by  Allah  Ta’ala  for  every  soul  long  before  its  appearance  on  earth  remains  static.  Neither  sin  and  transgression  will  reduce  the  quantitive  amount,  nor  will  obedience  and  virtue  increase  it.  The  quantitive  amount  of  wealth  is  not  dependent  on  intelligence,  business  acumen,  ability,  inability,  piety,  impiety,  etc.  The  ‘increase’  and  ‘decrease’  pertaining  to  Rizq  relate  to  barkat  (blessing),  not  to  the  static  quantitive  amount.
If  for  example,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  ordained  that  Zaid  will  earn  10  million  in  his  lifetime,  nothing  will  increase  or  decrease it.  Zaid  is  notified  by  the  Shariah  of  his  sealed  Rizq  which  he  has  to  acquire.  He  is  informed  of  two  ways  of  acquiring  his  Rizq  –  a  halaal  way  and  a  haraam  way.  He  is  told  that  if  he  adopts  the  halaal  way,  there  will  be  barkat,  thawaab  and  Allah’s  Pleasure.  His  rand/dollar  will  procure  more  and  last  longer.  On  the  other  hand,  if  he  employs  the  haraam  method,  his  10  million  will  be  deprived  of  barkat.  He  invites  Allah’s  Wrath,  and  instead  of  thawaab,  there  will  be  athaab.  His rand/dollar/rupee  will  be  deprived  of  blessings.

Allah  Ta’ala  has  created  this  world  as  the  arena  for  the  conflict  between  Haqq  and  Baatil,  vice  and  virtue.  He  has  created  Shaitaan  and  an  inherently  evil  nafs  within  us.  These  evil  forces  have  a  role  to  play  in  the  Divine  Scheme  of  creation.  Allah  Ta’ala  created  us  in  this  world  of  sin  and  misery,  and  placed  in  our  hands  a  Lamp  of  Guidance,  the  Deen,  with  which  we  have  to  pilot  our  way  through  the  innumerable  obstacles  and  dangers  along  our  sojourn  back  Home  to  Jannat  from  whence  the  journey  initiated  with  our  noble  Ancestors,  Hadhrat  Aadam  (alayhis  salaam)  and  Hadhrat  Hawwaa  (alayhas  salaam). 

Instead  of  constantly  polishing  this  Lamp  and  utilizing  it  correctly  to  manoeuvre  our  way  across  this  earthly  wilderness  of  danger,  we  extinguish  it  with  sin,  transgression,  and  worse  –  with  baseless  interpretation  to  justify  our  sin  and  evil.  When  there  develops  a  conflict  between  the  opposite  forces,  for  example,  in  the  sphere  of  Rizq  acquisition,  Muslims  invariably  extinguish  the  Lamp  and  adopt  the  haraam  way  with  the  licences  of  permissibility  offered  by  the  ulama-e-soo’.  Thus,  we  find,  riba  being  halaalized  and  licences  of  permissibility  granted  to  the  myriad  of  riba  banking  institutions  which  are  painted  with  Islamic  hues  to  mislead  and  con  ignorant  and  unwary  Muslims.  Even  such  Muslims  who  are  fully  aware  of  the  wrong  and  corruption  of  these  avenues  of  Rizq  acquisition  adopt  the  way  of  the  masses  of  Bani  Israael  who  accepted  the  haraam  methods  and  ways  of  acquisition  despite  their  hearts  testifying  to  the  evil  and  hurmat  of  such  ways  and  means.  Hence,  Allah  Ta’ala,  severely  reprimanding  such  people  says  in  the  Qur’aan Majeed: “They  take  their  Ulama  and  their  Mashaaikh  as  gods  besides  Allah…”   Their  holy  and  learned  men  would  fabricate  for  them  permissibilities  by  way  of  baseless  interpretation.  They  would  halaalize  riba,  carrion,  zina,  liquor,  and  haraam ways  of  Rizq  acquisition.  This  is  the  exact  malady  in  which the  Ulama,  Mashaaikh  and Awaamun  Naas  (general  public)  of  this  Ummah  are  entrapped  in  today.

It  is  vital  for  success  in  both  worlds  to  understand  that  all  halaal  institutions,  ways  and  means  will  incumbently  be  beset  with  difficulties  and  hardships.  Conscious  pursuit  of  only  Halaal  for  the  Sake  of  Allah  Ta’ala  is  logically  unpalatable  to  the  nafs.  It  is  all  part  of  the  worldly  test  for  which  we  have  been  despatched  to  earth  and  commanded  to  submit  to.  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:  “The  Fire  (of Jahannum)  is  adorned  with  delights  while  Jannat  is  veiled with  difficulties  and  hardships.” He  also  said: “This  dunya  is  a prison  for  the  Mu’min  and  a  paradise  for  the  kaafir.”  

Thus,  difficulties,  hardships  –  trials  and  tribulations  –  are  necessary  corollaries  in  the  process  of  Halaal  acquisition  of  Rizq.  The  Mu’min  is  therefore  required  to  simply  shrug  off  and  reject  any  act,  method  or  institution  which  is  in  conflict with  the  Shariah.  It  does  not  behove  the  Mu’min  whose  focus  is  on  the  Aakhirah  to  seek  an  interpretation  to  water  down  or  to  circumscribe  or  to  overcome  an  ordinance  of  the  Shariah.  It  is  imperative  that  he  understands  that  regardless  of  what  he  does,  he  will  not  be  able  to  increase  his  Rizq  even  one  cent,  and  regardless  of  what  he  does  not  do,  his  Rizq  will  not  decrease  by  one  cent.  Rizq  is  pre-determined,  pre-destined  and  sealed.

The  fluctuations  in  Rizq  will  be  in  the  sphere  of  barkat (blessing)  and  thawaab  which  will  increase  and  decrease  depending  on  a  variety  of  factors  related  to  our  lives,  and  not  only  to  the  way  of  Rizq  acquisition.  A  man’s  way  of  Rizq  acquisition  may  be  perfectly  lawful.  But  he  may  be  disobedient  to  his  parents  or  he  may  have  severed  a  family  tie  with  a  relative,  or  he  may  be  involved  in  some  other  act  of  transgression,  or  he  may  not  be  fulfilling  the  rights  (huqooq)  of  the  wealth,  or  perhaps  he  commits  bid’ah  or  his  tongue  may  be  abusive,  etc.,  etc.  All  these  factors  have  a  role  in  the  acquisition  of  barkat  or  in  being  deprived  thereof.

The  Deeni  life  of  a  Muslim  is  not  compartmentalized.  All  parts  of  the  Deen  are  cogs  in  a  Machine.  If  one  cog/part  malfunctions,  the  effect  permeates  the  entire  Machine.  For  gaining  maximum  barakat  in  Rizq,  it  is  necessary  to  implement  the  whole  of  the  Shariah  and  the  Sunnah

When  a  Muslim  adopts  a  haraam  way  of  Rizq  acquisition  he  betrays  his  lack  of  belief  in  the  Razzaaqiyat  of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal.  It  is  because  of  his  disbelief  in  the  assurance  given  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Qur’aan regarding  Rizq  that  he  feels  that  he  would  be  deprived  of  wealth  if  he  refrains  from  adopting  the  prevailing  haraam  ways  and  means  of  pursuing  money.  This  disbelief  prompts  him  to  deal  in  riba,  stolen  goods,  to  commit  fraud,  deception  and  generally  accept  all  the  baatil  systems  and  institutions  of  the  kuffaar  for  earning  wealth.  But,  due  to  his  disbelief,  he  fails  to  understand  that  despite  all  the  haraam  ways  and  means  he  will  not  obtain  what  Allah  Ta’ala  has  not  decreed for  him.

Dispossession  in  different  ways  of  already  possessed  wealth  is  evidence  for  the  reality  of  pre-ordained  quantitive  wealth. Calamities  such  as  robberies,  major  illness  costing  huge  sums,  heavy  losses,  fines  by  the  authorities,  taxes,  accidents  and  numerous  other  ways  of  financial  losses  which  dispossess  a  man  of  the  wealth  in  his  possession  indicate  that  such  wealth  was  not  decreed  in  his  Taqdeer  to  remain  with  him  for  his  benefit  in  this  world  and  the  Hereafter.  For  some  reason  Allah  Ta’ala  gave  him  temporary  possession.  For  example,  he  chose  a  haraam  way  of  earning  which  brought  him  substantial  wealth.  The  man  deceived  by  shaitaan  believes  that  he  has  earned  all  the  wealth  because  he  had  hated  the  haraam  method.

Meanwhile,  Allah  Ta’ala  allowed  him  temporary  possession  so  that  the  love  for  the  haraam  money  settles  in  his  heart. Allah  Ta’ala  then  afflicts  him  with  a  calamity  which dispossesses  him  of  the  ill-gotten  gain.  The  deprived  man  now  suffers  mental  agony  and  depression  in  consequence  of  the  loss  of  the  object  of  his  love  –  the  haraam  wealth.  This  agony  is  part  of  the  punishment  in  store  for  him.  Thus,  haraam  wealth  is  a  temporary  gain  of  which  he  will  be  soon  deprived  without  the  opportunity  of  benefiting  from  it.  Only  the  amount  ordained  in  his  Taqdeer  will  remain  with  him.

Muslims  should  understand  and  believe  in  the  Razzaaqiyat  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  Only  the  ordained  amount  will  remain  with  them  for  their  benefit.  When  the  understanding  dawns  that  Rizq  is  sealed,  the  Muslim  will  then  not  bat  an  eyelid  to  reject  any  Rizq  acquisition  proposal  which  conflicts  with  the  Shariah.

Refuting the Christian Lie about the Term ‘Allah’ meaning ‘curse’ in Hebrew Language

Important Note: Islamophobes  are born to lie, especially when it comes to Islam, they never leave any stone unturned and they just lie unhesitatingly and present statements without any intellect nor any with proof, they think that they will escape with their lie and fool the unwary masses, so whenever you hear anything against Islam from a hater, I recommend you to please verify from the correct Islamic source and seek judgement from your heart on which is the truth. Here in this blog, we are trying our best to differentiate between the lies of Christians and their evil allegations on Allah, Islam, the Qur’an and the Prophet. Please do leave any doubts or allegations you had come accross in our comments section so that we can expose them for the awareness of people. Also please feel free to share our posts with your friends, our aim is to diffuse the lying propaganda and hope the readers will help to fulfill the aim for the sake of truth.


A strange claim about “Allah” put forward by Islam-bashers states that “Allah” is the Hebrew word for “curse,” but this is a complete fabrication. Their entire reason for this misinterpretation is that the word for “curse” and the word for “Allah” use the same letters; but ignore the fact that “Allah” has an extra “L”, which means the word for “curse” is actually “Alah”, not “Allah.” Even if the two words are similar, it is important to remember that “Allah” is the Arabic word for God, not Hebrew; let alone the fact that many Middle Eastern Arab-Christians and Jews refer to God ad “Allah” themselves.

Some Christians unthinkingly say ‘Allah is not God.’ This is the ultimate blasphemy to Muslims, and furthermore, it is difficult to understand. Allah is the primary Arabic word for God. It means ‘The God.’ There are some minor exceptions. For example, the Bible in some Muslim lands uses a word for God other than Allah (Farsi and Urdu translations use the term ‘Khuda’ is an example). But for more than five hundred years before Prophet Muhammad, the vast majority of Jews and Christians in Arabia called God by the name Allah. How, then, can we say that Allah is an invalid name for God? If it is, then to whom have these Jews and Arab Christians been praying?

There are four letters when it’s represented in Hebrew – the Arabic name Allah in Hebrew letters:

(Allah) alef lamed lamed heh.

The Hebrew word for curse is only three letters:

(uh-luh) alef lamed heh.

Clearly they don’t look the same. Although the Arabic name Allah could be written in three letters in Hebrew by inserting a dot, a “dagesh,” inside the “lamed” – middle letter, the “l”

…and that is not how it’s written; …but even if it were, it still wouldn’t mean anything. It wouldn’t mean that Allah means curse any more than the Hebrew name for God “Eloah” means curse.

Furthermore, the Qur’an itself attests that “Allah” is the same deity of the Jews and Christians:

“We believe in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are oneand we submit to Him.” (Qur’an, 29:46)

“Say, “We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and what Moses and Jesus and all the Prophets were given by their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them. We are Muslims submitted to Him.” (Qur’an, 3:84)

Finally, no amount of facts or deeper discussion about where “Allah” comes from, linguistically and historically, or how Muslims and Arabic speakers have understood the word over millennia is bound to affect haters intent on demonizing Islam and Muslims. The simple reason for this is that Islamophobes are grappling with their own historical inheritance; the idea and concept that Muslims and Islam are the complete epitome of the “other”; a people so different than us that their God could “never be the same as our God.”

Seeing Allah in Dreams

Is it possible to see Allah in a dream? It is reported from Imam Abu Hanifa and others that they saw Allah in a dream, is that true?


In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

The position of the mainstream Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah (Asha’ira and Maturidiyya) is that the vision of Allah Most High with the eyes of the head is rationally (aqlan) possible and that the believers will be blessed with this vision in the hereafter. This vision, however, will be without encompassment (ihata) or delimitation (tahdid) within any given limit (hadd), whether from the front, the back, above, below, right, or left. Allah Most High will be seen (unlike any material being) not in place or in a direction so far as being confronted, nor by the conjunction of the rays of light, nor by a certain definite distance between the one who sees and Allah.

In other words, the believers will see Allah Most High in Paradise without our specifying how and in a manner Allah knows best. It is impossible and wrong to draw analogy for the unseen from the seen. This vision of Allah is certainly unlike the vision of material things in this world, for vision in this world requires the seen to be in a place, direction, at a specific distance, etc, whilst the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter will be free from such restrictions. Allah Most High will enable the believers to see His esteemed self. (Culled from Mulla Ali al-Qari’s Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar P: 245-246, Taftazani’s Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya P: 131, Nuh Ali Suleyman’s commentary on Jawhara al-Tawhid P: 113 and Bajuri’s commentary on the Jawhara P: 114)

The above is the position that the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah scholars have always maintained. The Mu’tazila and some other groups such as the Shi’a held that Allah Most High could not be seen at all, even on the Day of Resurrection or in Paradise. They interpreted certain verses of the Qur’an erroneously, rejected some sound hadiths claiming that such vision necessitated a physical body for Allah and a direction, which He Most High is free from. However, the position of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah is supported by many evidences of the Qur’an and Sunnah, of which some are presented below:

1) Allah Most High says:

“Some faces, that day, will beam (in brightness and beauty), looking towards their Lord.”(Surah al-Qiyama, V: 22-23)

2) Allah Most High says regarding the Prophet Sayyiduna Musa (Peace be upon him):

“When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! Show (Yourself) to me, that I may look upon You.” Allah said: “By no means can you see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abides in its place, then you shall see Me…” (Surah al-A’raf, V: 143)

In the above verse, Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him) requested to see Allah Most High. Had the vision of Allah been impossible, the request of Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him) would have been out of ignorance or foolishness or he would be making a request for the impossible, whereas all the Prophets of Allah are far removed from such things. Secondly, Allah Most High connected the vision with the abiding of the mountain firm in its place, which is something that is possible in itself. Hence, that which is connected to the possible is also possible. (Taftazani and Nasafi, Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P: 127-128)

3) Allah Most High says:

“There will be for them therein (in Paradise) all that they wish, and more besides in Our presence.”(Surah Qaf, V: 35)

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) interpreted “more” saying that it referred to the vision of Allah Most High. (Narrated by Muslim and others)

4) Allah Most High says regarding the disbelievers:

“Verily, from their Lord, that Day, will they be veiled.”(Surah al-Mutaffifin, V: 15)

This verse explains that the disbelievers will be deprived from the vision of Allah; hence by contrast, it implies that the believers will be blessed with this vision. Thus, Sayyiduna Imam Shafi’i (Allah have mercy on him) said:

“Allah Most High’s veiling Himself from a people (disbelievers) due to His displeasure indicates that a group (believers) will see Him due to His pleasure. By Allah, had Muhammad ibn Idrees (Shafi’i himself) not been convinced that he will see his Lord in the hereafter, he would not have worshipped him in this world!” (Bajuri, Tuhfat al-Murid)

5) Sayyiduna Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the people (companions) said: “O Messenger of Allah! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?” He replied: “Do you have any doubt in seeing the full moon on a clear (not cloudy) night?” They replied: “No, O Messenger of Allah” He said: “Do you have any doubt in seeing the sun when there are no clouds?” They replied in the negative. He said: “You will see Allah (your Lord) in the same way….” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 773)

6) Sayyiduna Jarir ibn Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that we were sitting in the company of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) on a fourteenth night (of the lunar month), and he looked at the (full) moon and said: “You will see your Lord as you see this moon. You have no trouble in looking at it. So, whoever can should not miss the offering of prayers before sunrise (Fajr prayer) and before sunset (Asr prayer).” Then the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) recited: “And celebrate the praises of your Lord, before the rising of the sun and before (its) setting.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 4570 and others)

7) Moreover, the occurrence of the vision of Allah has been narrated from Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, Sayyiduna Huzayfa ibn al-Yaman, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas, Sayyiduna Abu Musa al-Ash’ari and many others (Allah be pleased with them all). No Companion (sahabi) of the Messenger of Allah is reported to have rejected the vision of Allah; hence there is complete consensus of the Companions on this. (Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P: 131 & Tuhfat al-Murid Sharh al-Jawhara, P: 115)

As far as the verse “Visions comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision” (6: 139) is concerned, it refers to encompassing Allah Most High with our vision. Vision and encompassment are two different things, the latter is rejected in this verse, in that the visions of humans will not be able to encompass Allah most High (even in the hereafter), whilst the former (vision) has been proven in many verses of the Qur’an and many Hadiths. (ibid)

The vision of Allah Most High in this world

The above few evidences were relating to the possibility of seeing Allah and the believers seeing Him Most High in the hereafter. As far as seeing Allah Most High in this world is concerned, there are two situations here. Seeing Him whist awake and secondly seeing Him in sleep.

a) Seeing Allah whilst awake

There is, more or less, a consensus amongst the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah scholars that, though logically possible, nobody is able to see Allah Most High in this world in the state of being awake. However, there is a difference of opinion as to whether the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw Allah Most High in the night of ascension (me’raj) or not.

The renowned Hadith scholar and Hanafi jurist, Mulla Ali al-Qari (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“There is an agreement among the Muslims (scholars) that no believer will see Allah Most High with his eyes in this world. The scholars only differed with regards to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) seeing Allah during his ascension to the heavens.” (Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar, P: 354)

Mulla Ali al-Qari then said, there is a consensus on the fact that the vision of Allah cannot take place in this world for other than the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). He quoted Ibn al-Salah and Abu Shama saying that the one who claims to have seen Allah whilst being awake will not be believed, for this (vision of Allah whilst being awake) is something that even Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him) was prevented from when Allah Most High said to him: “By no means can you see Me”. However, there is a difference of opinion whether this vision occurred for the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). (ibid)

Some scholars went to the extent of considering such a person, who claims to have seen Allah whilst awake, a Kafir, although most scholars were precautions and did not consider such a person to be an outright Kafir. However, there is no doubt that this person will be considered to have severely deviated. (ibid) Hence, no individual (besides the Messenger of Allah) is able to see Allah Most High whilst being awake in this mortal world.

As far as the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) is concerned, the Companions differed as to whether he (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw Allah in the night of Isra’ and Me’raj or not. Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas and others (Allah be pleased with them all) related that he did, whilst Sayyida A’isha, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud and others (Allah be pleased with them all) were of the opinion that he did not see Allah with the eyes of his head during his ascension to the heavens. As a result, the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah also have conflicting views on this issue.

Imam al-Bukhari relates that Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) said regarding the statement of Allah: “And We granted the vision (Ascension to the heavens) which We showed you, but as a trial for men…” (17.60): He said: “The sights which the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was shown on the night he was taken to Bayt al-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) were actual sights, (not dreams). And the cursed tree (mentioned) in the Qur’an is the tree of Zaqqum.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 3675)

Imam Tirmidhi has also related some narrations from Abd Allah ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) wherein he states that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) did see his Lord in the night of Isra’ and Me’raj. (See: Sunan Tirmidhi, chapter on the commentary of the Qur’an, Surah al-Najm)

On the other hand, Sayyida A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) has rigorously denied that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw Allah Most High with the eyes of his head. The following is the narration expressing her viewpoint:

Imam al-Bukhari (Allah have mercy on him) narrates from Masruq that the latter said: “I said to A’isha: “O my mother! Did Muhammad (Allah bless him & give him peace) see his Lord?” She replied: “My hair stands on end because of what you said. Have you no idea of three things? Whoever tells them to you is lying. Whosoever tells you that Muhammad (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw his Lord, is lying.” She then recited: “Visions comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision. He is the Subtle, the Aware” and “And it is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil”. (Secondly), whosoever tells you that he knows what shall happen tomorrow is lying.” She then recited: “No soul knows what it will earn tomorrow” And (thirdly) whosoever tells you that he (Allah bless him & give him peace) concealed something, is lying.” She then recited: “O Messenger. Proclaim the (message) which has been sent to you from your Lord”. “However, he (Allah bless him & give him peace) did see (the angel) Jibra’il (peace be upon him) in his actual form twice.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 4574).

Some scholars explained that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) had a vision with the eyes of the heart, and not with the eyes of his head. This is elucidated by Ibn Abbas’ other narrations in Sahih Muslim and elsewhere where he said: “He saw him with his heart.” Hence, in this way, the two opinions may be reconciled. (Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, 8/430)

Imam al-Bajuri (Allah have mercy on him) said that the preferred position according to the Ulama is that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) did see his Lord in the night of al-Isra’ and al-Me’raj with the eyes of his head. The Hadith of Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) will be given preference over the position of Sayyida A’isha (Allah be pleased with her), as the principle states “Affirmation (ithbat) takes precedence over the negation (nafi)”. Hence, the position of Ibn Abbas and others (Allah be pleased with them all) will be given preference and it will be said that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was blessed with the vision of his Lord in the night of al-Isra’ and al-Me’raj. (Bajuri, Tuhfat al-Murid, P: 117-118)

The best statement on the issue is of Shaykh Muhyi al-Din ibn Arabi (Allah have mercy on him). He said: This world is that which is below the heavens and anything above the heavens is considered to be part of the next world (akhira). Hence, the vision of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) will not be considered a vision of this world; rather it is a vision of the next world, and there is no disagreement concerning the vision of the hereafter. Hence, this vision of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was also a type of the vision of the hereafter. (See: Ma’arif al-Qur’an, 3/412)

b) Seeing Allah in a dream

As far as the vision of Allah Most High in a dream is concerned, Imam al-Taftazani (Allah have mercy on him) states in his commentary of Imam Nasafi’s al-Aqa’id:

“As far as the vision of Allah in sleep is concerned, it is something that has been related from many predecessors (salaf). And there is no doubt that this is a type of observation by the heart rather than the eye.” (Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P: 135)

Mulla Ali al-Qari (Allah have mercy on him) states in his renowned Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar:

“The majority of the scholars are of the view that the vision of Allah Most High in sleep is possible, without any given description of modality (kayfiyya), direction (jiha) or quiddity (hay’a). It is recorded that Imam Abu Hanifa (Allah have mercy on him) said: “I saw Allah Most High 99 times whilst asleep.” Then he saw Him the hundredth time also, the story of which is long and not feasible to be mentioned here. It is recorded that Imam Ahmad (Allah have mercy on him) said: “I saw Allah Most High in a dream, I said: “O Lord! How is it possible to achieve closeness to You?” He replied: “By the recitation of my speech (Qur’an).” I said: “O Lord! Recitation with understanding or (even) without understanding?” He replied: “With or without understanding.” It is also narrated from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) that he said: “I saw my Lord in my sleep.” Hence, the vision of Allah in sleep is recorded from many predecessors (salaf) and it is a type of observation by the heart observed by noble people…” (Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar, P: 356-357)

Imam al-Bajuri (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“As far as seeing Allah Most High in sleep, it is narrated from Qadhi Iyadh that there is no difference of opinion regarding its occurrence and truth, for the Satan cannot take the form of Allah Most High like he cannot take the form of the Prophets (peace be upon them)….. (Tuhfat al-Murid, P: 118)

The above-mentioned few texts of the scholars indicate clearly that Allah Most High can be (and has been) seen in a dream. It is something that His noble and pious servants are blessed with, and one cannot deny its occurrence. Indeed some Ulama did deny the possibility of seeing Allah in sleep, but that is a minority position not accepted by the majority of the scholars.

Imam al-Bajuri (Allah have mercy on him) has mentioned some additional notes regarding the vision of Allah in sleep in his commentary ofJawhara al-Tahid.

He states that, if one sees Allah in a manner that is not impossible for Allah, then one has surely seen Him. However, if one sees Him in a form that is impossible for Him such as seeing Him in a form of a specific individual, then that is not Allah rather it is the creation of Allah, and the dream will need to be interpreted by those qualified to do so. Some scholars said that even in such a case, one did actually see Allah, but the form seen is not the reality of Allah; rather, it is reflecting the mind of the one having the vision. (Tuhfat al-Murid Sharh Jawhara al-Tawhid, P: 118)

Imam Ibn Sirin (Allah have mercy on him), a major classical scholar considered to be a master in the science of interpreting dreams, states in his renowned book, The Interpretation of Dreams: (This book incidentally covers over 900 dreams with their meanings explained. It explains what facts are to be taken into account when interpreting a dream, when is a dream regarded as true or false, etc.)

“Sayyiduna Daniyal (peace be upon him) relates that if a believer was to see Allah Most High in his dream unequalled and incomparable, as is related in the verses of the Qur’an and in the Hadiths, he will be blessed with the magnificent sight of Allah Most High (in the hereafter) and his needs will also be fulfilled. If an individual was to see a dream in a manner that he was standing before Allah Most High and that He Most High was watching him, then the dream is a sign of his piety and spiritual well-being. He will be chosen for forgiveness, and if he is sinful he will repent.” (Ta’bir al-Ru’ya, P: 67)

Imam Ibn Sirin then goes on to mention many types of dreams in which one sees Allah Most High and gives their interpretations. For example, if one sees that Allah Most High is talking secretly with one, then this means one is close to Allah Most High. If one sees that Allah Most High is advising one and giving one Nasiha, then this alludes to the fact that Allah Most High is not completely happy with one’s actions. A glad tiding from Allah is a sign of His pleasure and admonition from Allah is a sign of His wrath and anger (ibid). For more details, one may refer to Imam Ibn Sirin’s above-mentioned book, but one should consult a reliable scholar of knowledge, piety and wisdom before coming to any sort of conclusion.

To sum up, the vision of Allah Most High is rationally possible and the believers will be blessed with this vision in the hereafter. However, no one is able to see Allah in this world whilst in a state of being awake besides the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), and regarding the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) too, there is a difference of opinion amongst the Companions (Allah be pleased with them all). As far as seeing Allah in sleep is concerned, this is possible and is related from many pious servants of Allah, saints and scholars.

And Allah knows best

[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam 
Darul Iftaa 
Leicester , UK


Divine Omnipresence of Allah Ta’ala

Allah’s Omnipresence has been the belief of the Ummah since the inception of Islam.There is no difference of opinion among the Ulama of Islam on the Omnipresence of Allah Ta’ala Who declares in the Qur’aan Majeed:


Similarly, He says:

East and West belong to Allah. Whichever way you turn your face, there is Allah’s Presence.”

Leaving all philosophical and fanciful discussion aside, the Qur’aanic fact upheld and proclaimed by the Ulama of the Ummah for the past 14 centuries is that Allah Ta’ala is here, there and everywhere at one and the same time. Whether this doctrine be understood or not and whether it sounds logic or illogic is of no consequence. The belief of His Emanence is unanimous.


The argument of Allah Ta’ala being above or on top of the Arsh cannot be cited in refutation of Allah’s
Omnipresence. The Qur’aanic  verses pertaining to Allah’s Presence on top of the Divine Throne belong to the Mutashaabihat (Allegorical) category. The interpretation of such verses is known to only Allah Ta’ala. When the Qur’aan speaks of Allah’s Face and Allah’s Hand, it is not permissible to attribute on this basis anthropomorphistic connotations to Allah Ta’ala because dimension and direction are not applicable to Him. Any aspect such as direction and dimension which implies finitude concern only created beings.

While everyone accepts the Qur’aanic claim of Istiwaa alal Arsh (or Allah’s Presence on the Arsh), the manner of such Presence defies our created minds.


The claim that the Islamic belief of Allah’s Omnipresence is the product of Brahmanic influence is absolutely stupid and ludicrous. This belief has come down in the Ummah many centuries before Muslims had contact with Hindus of India. This belief has been propounded by the greatest authorities of the Shariah since all times. Only ignorant people can be misled by the stupid claim made by deviates.

The satanism of such deviates is conspicuous. By implication the deviate is saying that for 14 centuries the greatest authorities of the Shariah were in darkness regarding this belief, and only today, the true belief has been unearthed, and that too by a modernist deviate who has no Islamic credentials Muslims should beware of the writings of all products of kuffaar universities. The surest sign of deviation is hatred and criticism of the Math-habs. When a man rejects the Taqleed of the Math-habs, his deviation is manifest.

The Omnipresence of Allah Ta’ala is an unanimous belief propagated by the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. Those who step beyond the confines of this Jama’ah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) plunge into dhalaal and the Fire of Jahannum.

Refuting the Baseless Claim that Allah is a ‘Moon-god’


The argument that lays the floor work for the people that argue that Allah is a pre-Islamic pagan deity known and worshipped as the moon-god is their claim that Allah was alien to the Jews and the Christians and they rejected Him as a false deity. We find in Robert Morey’s The Moon-god In the Archaeology of The Middle East, p. 1

The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of “Allah.” The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was “Allah” the biblical God or a pagan god in ‘Arabia during pre-Islamic times? The Muslim’s claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if “Allah” is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre-Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted.”

The first problem is that the above statement implies that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and in continuation, the Muslims are trying to sell the Jews and the Christians a lie by saying that Allah is the God mentioned within their scriptures. This opinion is demonstrated further in his next statement:

Muhammad attempted to have it both ways. To the pagans, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah. To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their God too. But both the Jews and the Christians knew better and that is why they rejected his god Allah as a false god.”

The above sentence is combined with two blatant lies. The first being that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was trying to convince the pagans he worshipped what they worshipped. We know this claim to be false for many reasons as we will refute shortly. The second false claim is that the Jews and the Christians rejected Allah as a false god. Our main focus will be on refuting this false premise.


It is very easy to prove that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ rejected the idolatrous worship in Arabia and that the Makkan pagans actually rejected Allah. This can be witnessed by any sensible mind who reads the Qur’an, the Ahaadeeth, or the Biography of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ , even at a basic level. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ made no efforts at all to try and convince the pagans of Makkah that he worshipped what they worshipped, and just to prove this I will quote a few passages from the Qur’an.

The following passages can be found in Surat al-Kaafirun: “Say [to them] O disbelievers: I worship not what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship, and I will never worship what you worship, so to you your religion, and to me my religion” The Chapter of the Disbelivers”  It is reported in the Seerah compiled by Ibn Hisham , p. 285 , also in what is said to be Ibn Ihsaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 165 that the Prophet was doing the circumbalation of the Ka’bah when al-Aswaad b. Muttalib b. Asad and Umayyah b. Khalaf approached him and said “O Muhammad, worship our Lord for some time and we will worship your Lord for sometime; if yours is better, then we will benefit from that and if ours is better you will benefit from that. It was at this moment that Surat ul-Kaafirun was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It is clear from this account alone that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was not trying to please the pagans by saying we worship the same god. In fact, he made it a common practice to differ with them at nearly every turn! [Footnote, this also refutes Robert Morey’s claim in which he uses the ayah “Tales of the ancients dictated to him day and night, for this is an example of how the revelation would come down in spontanious circumstances].


Dr. Robert Morey also claimed in the above statement that the Jews and the Christians  rejected Allah as a false god. So what name did the Arabic Bible use  if it did not use Yahweh?? What did the Jews and Christians of Arabia call their deity before Islam and after Islam?? The oldest Syriac New Testament dating back to 465 AD [after departure], the Peshitta which is written in the native tongue of ‘Eesa alayhissalaam [Jesus Christ], Aramaic, uses the name Alaha for God. Furthermore, the oldest Arabic Bible, the Mt Sinai Arabic Codex 151, which dates back to 867 AD also uses the name Allah for God. Just this simple fact alone is enough to destroy Dr. Robert Morey’s argument. However, let us look further into this baseless claim.

The fact of the matter is, the Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe that Allah is the true universal God.  Had Allah been a pagan deity that the Jews and Christians rejected as a false deity, then surely there would have been record of this in early Jewsish, Christian-Muslim debates. It would have been recorded in the primary and secondary sources, which include the Qur’an and the Ahaadeeth, yet we find no such objections. Not from the Jews, not from the Christians, not even the pagans!

The Qur’an clearly responds to the Jewish claim regarding parts of their Torah in which they substituted:

“Woe to those who write the book with their own hands and then say ‘This is from Allah’…” Al-Qur’an Surah al-Baqarah, ayah 2:79

We can deduce from this evidence that the Jews used to forge scripture and then claim that is was directly from Allah. Firstly you need to ask why would the Jews attribute their Torah to a pre-Islamic pagan deity if they (according to Robert Morey) believed Allah to be such?? Secondly, why do we not see any recorded argument from the Jews saying “We did not say this book is from Allah” in response to this ayah??

In the following ayah from the Qur’an the Jews claimed that they had made a promise to Allah not to believe in a messenger unless he showed them a sacrifice consumed by fire, they said:

“Allah took our promise not to believe in a Messenger unless he showed us a sacrifice consumed by fire.” Al-Qur’an, Surah al Imraan .3:183

We can see further from the Qur’an that the Jews and the Christians claimed to be the children of Allah:

“And both the Jews and the Christians say ‘we are the children of Allah and His loved ones…” Al-Qur’an Surat ul Maa’idah, ayah 5:18

It does not stop here as we can see the Jews using the name Allāh for their deity can be seen further in Surah 2, verse 89, where it is noted that the Jews of Madinah used to pray to Allah for victory over the pagan tribes in that residence.  Concerning this verse Imaam as-Suyuti [rahimahullah] said:

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated through Said or Ikrima from Ibn Abbas: the Jews used to pray for the Prophet ﷺ to come so they could be victorious against the Aws and the Khajaz , before he was sent. Then, Allāh sent him from amongst the ‘Arabs, but they disbelieved in him. They denied and rejected what they used to say about him.  At this Muaadh Ibn Jabaal, Bishr ibn al-Bara, and Dawud ibn Salama said: “O Jews! Fear Allaah and submit! For you used to pray for victory with the coming of Muhammad when we were disbelievers, and you used to tell us that he is a Messenger soon to be sent, and you would describe him for us.” Whereupon Salaam ibn Mashkam, one from amongst the Jewish tribe of Banu Naadir, said, “He did not come to us with something we recognize, and he is not the one we used to describe and speak about before” _Imaam Suyuti’s Asbaab al-Nuzuwl. from al-Itqaan fi Ulum ul-Qur’an

Imaam Suyuti [rahimahullah] also records the exact supplication the Jews used:

Allahumma unsurna alayhim bin-nabi i.e. “O Allah   please help us (be victorious) over them with the (promised) Messenger ﷺ” _Imaam Suyuti’s Tafseer Jalalayn, ayah 2:89

On another occasion, the Jews were asked by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ what would they think if their main priest converted to Islam and upon hearing that they replied:

May Allah protect him from that”  _Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, No. 275

This Hadeeth is known to Dr. Robert Morey as he quoted from it on p. 61 of his book, “Winning The War Against Radical Islam,” however he has chose to ignore this evidence along with many others, as it would destroy the credibility of his thesis that Allah was alien to the Jews. Dr. Robert Morey does not want you to know that the Jews used the name Allah for their deity! He knows fully well that their argument was not concerning the name of God, but, the prophet hood of Muhammad ﷺ, as the Jews only objection was with the Prophet-hood of Muhammad ﷺ.

Another example is the changing of the direction of the Qiblah.   For many years, the Muslims faced towards Jerusalem for their daily prayers until Allah sent down a revelation commanding the Muslims to face the direction of the Kabah in Makkah.   Ibn Ihsaaq reports that the change of direction happened one year and six months after the Holy Prophet ﷺ and the Muslims had emigrated to Madinah.

This demonstrates for us that, for so many years the Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem whilst they were in Makkah! Facing the direction of Jerusalem pleased The Jews and gave them hope that they could convert Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to Judaism. However, they had lost all hope when Muhammad ﷺ told them:

All nations are equal before Allah, and Allah   chooses whom He wishes for Prophet-hood and the distinction is not for Jews alone

This belief would have destroyed everything the Jews stood for concerning their beliefs that only they were to be the trustees and owners of Allah’s religion, thus making them thee chosen ones.  Allah shattered their delusions by revealing the command for the Muslims to change their direction to Makkah. The Jews objected to this strongly and Allah revealed the verse

The fools among the people say ‘What has made them turn away from the direction they used to face’”

It is strange that we do not find the Jews arguing anywhere about the name Allah, but, something a lot less serious, being the direction of prayer.

The Encyclopaedia Judaica also gives us strong irrefutable evidence that the Jews in ‘Arabia did in fact use the proper name Allah for their deity. If we look up the name ‘Abdullah Yusuf, we find the following submission:

Last of the false Messiahs to appear among the Jews of Yemen …His opponents (the Jews) mockingly named him “’Adu Allah” (“enemy of God”), a play on his name ‘Abdallah (“servant of God”). _Encyclopaedia Judiaca, Vol. 2, pp. 51-53.

These evidences demonstrate that the Jews used the name Allah before and after the advent of Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ declaration to his prophetic office. If there had been a problem with the usage of the name Allah, the Jews would have argued this point and such an argument would have been recorded either in the texts of the Ahadeeth or in historical documentation. However we find none. Had it been that the name Allah was pagan in origin, then the Jews would have strongly objected based on the ruling in the “Torah”  which states that one should not utter any name of any false god (see:Bible, Exodus 23:13).

We clearly see from the evidences that Allah was indeed the Jewish Deity, however, what about the Christians??

The Christians also raised many objections against Islam but we find it was never once about the name Allah. It is reported that the Christians of Najran listened attentively to Mughirah Ibn Shubah (radgiyallahu anhu) reciting the verses of the Qur’an that relate to Bibi Maryam (Biblical Mary) and the birth of Hadhrat ‘Eesa  alayhissalaam (Jesus) After hearing the recitation of the Qur’an they objected to Mary being referred to as “O sister of Aaron” accusing Prophet Muhammad ﷺ of Anachronism.

They never objected to the passages which quote baby ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) as saying

Indeed I am a servant of Allah (‘Abdullah).

The Christian king Negus had these very same verses recited to him and he made no objections in regards to the name Allah either.

Let us also recall the sixty Christian riders from Najran who came to to hold a face to face dialogue with Prophet Muhammad ﷺ . They had many disagreements with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ but Allah being the true name for God was never one of them. They were refuted for their notion of Trinity in a very clear cut manner, the very verse that says “wa la taquwlu thalatha” i.e. “do not say three”  – “innama al maseehu ‘isaabn maryam rasoolullahi” i.e. “Jesus the Messiah, son of Mary is only a Messenger of Allah” (S.4:171).

Note here that we fail to find one Christian in any historical account who says “Wait a minute, hold it right there! You said ‘Rasoolullah’! Allah is not God’s name! You must have it confused, why are you saying Jesus is the Messenger of the moon-god?” In fact, we find in the Qur’an and other historical documents the Christians argued that Jesus was Allah, and they still use this very argument to this day.  Furthermore, one of the Christians had the name ‘Abdullah i.e. servant of Allah, and he may have been born well before Muhammad’s ﷺ declaration to Prophet-hood. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah by Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press, pgs. 270-277

Likewise, we find no objections from the pagans!

Had Allah been a pre-Islamic pagan deity housed inside of the Kabah, then the pagans of Makkah would have been the first to object to the idea that Allah was the same God that the Jews and the Christians worshipped. They would have been the first to argue that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Jews and the Christians. They would have jumped to this chance to call Prophet Muhammad ﷺ an imposter, a liar. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the pagans to disprove Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ beliefs, especially in the court of Negus, as mentioned before.  However these arguments are conspicuously absent from the texts of the Qur’an and the Ahadeeth, or any historical documentation.

Overall, these few examples demonstrate that even though the Jews, Christians and the pagans made objections, they shared a common belief in Allah as being the true universal God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Dr. Robert Morey confirms that the only challenge to the Qur’an that the infidels put forth was the claim that the Qur’an is just a bunch of tales from the ancients:

But the unbelievers say, “This is nothing but a lie which he has forged, and other have helped him do it …Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written; and they are dictated before him morning and evening” Qur’an S.25:4-5

However look more closely at this claim for Dr. Robert Morey says:

The authors of the Qur’an assumed that everyone already knew of these things and thus no explanation was needed_Winning The War Against Radical Islam p. 5

Dr. Robert Morey further documents on pgs 7-8 of this said work, that the Qur’an is composed of Jewish and Christian myths. Notice very closely that there was no objection was from the infidels claiming that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had transformed their pagan deity to the God of the Jews and the Christians. Reason being is that the pagans already believe that Allah, the supreme God of the universe was the same God that the Jews and the Christians worshipped. This is clearly seen from the following ayah from the Qur’an:

Say: ‘Who provides you from the sky and the earth? Or who owns his hearing and sight? And who brings out the dead from the living? And who disposes the affairs?’ They [the pagans] will say ‘Allah.’ Say: ‘Will you not then be afraid of Allah’s punishment [for setting up partners with Allah].”   Surah 10 ayah 31

This understanding is also seen in Imaam Muwaafaq ud-Deen’s lum’at ul-I’tiqaad:

The Holy Prophet ﷺ said to Hussain:  “How many deities do you worship?” He replied: “Seven! Six in the earth and one in the heavens” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then asked him another question: “Which one do you turn to when you feel frightened or terrified or have a need to be fulfilled?” The man said:  “He who is in the heavens” So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Abandon the six and worship He who is in the heavens and I will teach you two supplications” Upon hearing this from the Messenger of Allah the man then embraced Islam and learnt from the Holy Prophet ﷺ the following supplication: “O Allah inspire me and guide me and protect me from the evilness of my soulSunan at-Tirmidhi, Kitaab ud-Da’awaah, hadeeth  no. 3483. The whole quotation of this paragraph is found in the classical text Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad p. 45, translated by Andrew Sanders, Saladin Publishing 2009

Therefore it is clearly seen that the pagan ‘Arabs did believe Allah to be the true universal deity “The one in the heavens” and none of them ever understood Allah to be a stone pagan deity housed in the Ka’bah. Although, they “believed” in Allah, their disbeleief was due to associating partners to Him. Robert Morey wants to lead you to believe that Allah was once a stone deity. However it is clear from the evidence I have presented that Allah is the God of the Jews Christians and they had no objections to that.


In a previous discussion, Robert Morey accused me of making a factual error when I posed the question “why has no objection been made by the Jews and the Christians of Arabia in regards to the name of Allah?” instead of answering the question, he replied by saying:

You have committed a factual error in that you do not know the early debates between Christians and Muslims where the name “Allah” was rejected as pagan.”

The book that Robert Morey refers to is an edited version of The early Christian-Muslim dialogue by al-Kindi `Abd al-Masih ibn Ishaq.  This is best known as “The Apology of al-Kindi” and it documents an early Muslim-Christian debate in which letters were exchanged between a Muslim theologian and ‘Abd ul-Maseeh al-Kindi. This text has been translated from the ‘Arabic manuscript

[Risaalah ‘Abdullah Bin Isma’el al-Hashimy ilaa ‘Abdul-Maseeh Bin Ihsaaq al-Kindi. This text can be downloaded at ] by Sir William Muir in 1880 and N. A. Newman later edited the English of this text adding a few comments of his own. Robert Morey has refered to this book in his “The moon-god in the Archeaology of the Middle East” on page 13.

So what do we learn from this book??

Firstly, al-Kindi uses the Arabic basmalah which Arabic speaking Jews, Christians and Muslims commonly did. This is to begin the book in Allah’s name by saying “Bismillahi” i.e. In the name of Allah.

The reply of al-Kindi is introduced thus… The Christian [al-Kindi] answered him [the Muslim scholar he was debating] In the name of God the Merciful” which in the original Arabic manuscript of this apology is “Bismillah ar-Rahmaan arRaheem” [See the apology of al-Kindi translated by Sir William Muir, p. 16 and the Arabic text  Risaalah ‘Abdullah Bin Isma’el al-Hashimy ilaa ‘Abdul-Maseeh Bin Ihsaaq al-Kindi The Arabic can be clearly seen at on p. 41]

Not only this, but we find al-kindi prefixing the name Allah with the ‘Arabic word “ta’alaa” which translates into English as “The Almighty” so along along al-Kindi is saying Allah the Almighty. Even the Biblical quotes that al-Kindi utilizes contain the name Allah as the name for his supreme deity. This factor destroys Robert Morey’s claim that Allah was rejected as a pagan deity. This really does tear apart his claim that:

The Jews and Christians… rejected… Allah as a false god_The moon-god in the Archeaology of the Middle East”  p. 13.

Especially given the fact Robert Morey then goes on to quote from al-Kindi directly after this statement. This only demonstrates that Robert Morey has not carefully read the text in English, let alone ‘Arabic. Let us look at how he quotes al-Kindi to his own little agenda:

Al-Kindi, one of the early Christian apologists against Islam, pointed out that Islam and its god Allah did not come from the Bible but from the paganism of the Sabeans.” The moon-god in the Archeaology of the Middle East, By Robert A. Morey, p. 13

Robert Morey wants us to believe that al-Kindi is suggesting that Allah is a pagan deity who is unknown to the Bible, however we have successfully demolished this claim with overwhelming factual evidence. However, let us see what Sir William Muir undertstands from al-Kindi’s statement:

His friend [Al-Hishamy] had invited him to embrace the Hanyfite, faith of Abraham, their common father. Our Apologist answers that the Hanyfite faith was in reality the idolatrous religion of the Sabeans, which the patriarch professed before his conversion to the worship of the one true God.” The Apology of Al-Kindy, 2nd Edition, page 41

We see from Sir William Muir’s commentary that Al-Kindy alleges that the Hanifite faith of Islam, i.e. the Abrahamic faith, stems from the paganism of the Sabeans, then, he further alleges that Abraham was of this idolatrous religion until he turned in his worship to the one true God. He is not saying Allah is a pagan deity, he is saying that Abraham used to worship pagan deities before his “conversion”.

In Islam we know this to be untrue as the Qur’an clearly states that Abraham was never one of the idolaters in many places, as the Qur’an says “Wa maa kaana minal mushrikeen – He [Abraham was not one of the pagans

I would like the readers to take note what Sir William Muir writes in the footnote to this point:

But the only argument in this passage as to the propriety of circulating or translating which I have doubts is that in which he asserts the Hanyfite religion of Abraham to have been, not the Catholic faith of the Unity (as is clearly intended in the Coran)  , but Sabean idolatry. To support this view, our Author twists texts of the Coran…Mahometan readers will with reason object to such misrepresentation of their Scripture.” Ibid page 43.

Please take special care in noticing how Sir William Muir freely admits that he, himself, doubts what al-Kindi has asserted regarding the alleged paganism of Abraham, due to Al-Kindi’s deliberate twisting and misrepresentation and cherrypicking of the Qur’an to deceive the readers into arriving at his own concocted conclusion that Abraham was formerly a pagan. [He uses the ayah’s from the Qur’an 6:74-82, however it must be understood clearly that Abraham was making an example to his people in order to lead them to the One true God and he was never one of the mushrikeen as proven in Surat ul-Baqarah (2), ayah 135]

Therefore the integrity of Al-Kindi is questioned, not by the Muslim but by a Christian Missionary. Al-Kindi only alleged that Abraham [Qur’anic Ibraheem alayhissalaam] was formerly a pagan and attempted to cherrypick ayahs from the Qur’an to prove his case.  How then has Robert Morey managed to derive without any hard solid evidence to back up his theory that somehow al-Kindi has implied that Allah was the Sabean Moon-god? Robert Morey’s referral to the early Christian and Muslim debates has failed dismally, and the evidence i against his thesis, not with his thesis.

Robert Morey’s deceptive style of quotation does not stop here as he then tries to conclude from the evidence we just refuted that Dr. Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by stating:

Islam proved itself to be…a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry.” moon-god booklet, p.13

However, Dr Newman actually wrote:

The first three centuries of the Christian-Muslim dialogue to a great degree moulded the form of the relationship which was to prevail between the two faiths afterward. During this period, Islam proved itself to be less a wayward sect of the “Hagarenes,” from a Christian perspective, and more a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry. ” N. A. Newman (Ed.), The Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A Collection Of Documents From The First Three Islamic Centuries (632 – 900 A.D.) Translations With Commentary, 1993, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 719.

Dr Robert Morey conveniently left out that the idea that Islam originating from paganism is from a Christian perspective i.e. this is a point of view, and does not serve as evidence, nor does it have any citations to even strengthen this bias Christian perspective. Unfortunately, Dr Robert Morey has misunderstood and misused the evidences al-Kindi to form baseless assumptions and misinterpretation of what the text actually says. Once again, we are to find this unscrupulousness all too common when it comes to Dr. Morey’s “truthful” integrity and “careful” scholarship.